Talk:Baby boomers/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Greatest Generation which affects the Generations template on this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Generation theory is psuedoscience and definition is wrong

> "There are varying timelines defining the start and the end of this cohort; demographers and researchers typically use starting birth years ranging from the early-to mid-1940s and ending birth years ranging from 1960 to 1964."

This COMPLETELY ignores the fact that the defintion is a entirely United States centric term, and the sterotypes and prejudices this fundametnally flawed theory codifies only applies to people from the United States. Even the trash book that coined the term acknolwedges this. Which is one of the reasons its useless lens, and mostly just a way to legitimize agism. This is literally as stupid as measuring skulls and racism, its completely useless.

The fact that there is literally NO MENTION of criticism of this awful theory, even though its 100% pseudoscience. Its mind boggling.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowgirlbeebop (talk • contribs) 07:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC) 

Cowgirlbeebop, please don't add statements to lead that it's pseudoscience and add category pseudoscience to the article without adding any reliable sources that describe it as pseudoscience. DynaGirl (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Cowgirlbeebop: 100% correct. Stereotyping people by their date of birth is no different than racism. Every generation is an extremely diverse mixture of people, from bank robbers to courageous heroes, so to foment hatred for everyone born in this period is identical to racial stereotyping, as is encouraging losers from younger generations to use their parents' generation as scapegoats to blame their miserable lives on. The second point is that the circumstances of "boomer" generation's existence were 100% beyond their control. Decisions were mostly made by politicians who broke most of their campaign promises, thus contradicting the wishes of voters. Other decisions, like shipping manifacturing jobs to Asia and Mexico, were made by ivory-tower executives, and no politician from any party prevented this. The average "boomer" had nothing to do with it. The obscene increases in corporate CEOs salaries (while workers' wages stagnated) were made by elite boards of directors very far removed from ordinary people, and mostly older than the generation that this hateful article is whining about. Third point: as you said, this hate campaign is specifically targeting US "boomers", and the accusations, whining, and false blaming of the "boomer" generation loses any gloss of credibilty when applied outside of the US. "Boomers" from Borneo or Russia would find no sense in it. Even as it stands, it is superficial propaganda, and is about as scientific as the theory that long lines on the ground in Peru were airports made by aliens. There is no such thing as a "reliable source" here, other than maybe experts in the field of debunking crackpot theories.77Mike77 (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Rename article?

As it stands, this article is almost entirely structured around the notion of 'baby boomers' in the Unite States. Obviously it would be possible to add information about the concept in other countries, but I find the text of this article to be so US-centric that such additions could only be seen as ancillary information. Accordingly, I'm wondering if the article should be renamed Baby boomers in America or Baby boomers (US). Anyone have a view on this? Silas Stoat (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I feel like we could at least make all the generations articles relate to the Western world. If we changed the name for this article we'd have to change most or all of them. I did add the date range for Australia at least (it's the same). --Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. The answer seems to me to be to make the article better reflect the wider world. There is no doubt that the term Baby Boomer is used outside the USA. Some of the other labels of generations are however more problematic, GI Generation (and even it's redirect Greatest Generation) being an obvious one that has no meaning outside the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I found these during a previous move discussion: Talk:Greatest_Generation#Global? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm a pretty widely read Australian whose been around nigh on 70 years, and Wikipedia is the only place I've seen the term used. HiLo48 (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

18 years or 19 years?

This number has been edited back and forth in the lead. Obviously 1946 to 1964 includes 19 years, but the US Census Bureau seems to only include half of the first and last years so 18 may be accurate for them. [1] I assume most other organizations and the media do not get so granular, but I don't know. Maybe this number should be removed entirely? Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Out-of-date source/link

Source number 45 takes us to Carrington.edu, but is not an original source. Carrington.edu sources their claim from Amsa.org with a web-address that is no longer valid. This source either needs to be properly found or taken down.

Baby Boomer Birth Dates

Good afternoon,

I am impressed with all of the information that is contained on the Baby Boomer Wikipedia page. However, something that has always bugged me is the potential prejudice regarding certain birth dates (and this goes for other generations as well) on Wikipedia. I think other diverse birth date ranges should be included as long as it is backed by a credible source, academic research or highly respected research institution rather than some opinionated blog that is not backed by any academic or institutional research.

This is one area that Wikipedia has not managed to overcome when it comes to these types of pages and confuses potential marketers who use this site as a reference. I recently posted a diverse birth date defining Baby Boomers from 1945-1965 backed by the CDC - a highly respected institution in this country, and noticed it has already been suppressed by unknown reasons? I understand this link is not from an academic panel but I'm sure that CDC has done the research or has the resources to do so to accurately define their market.

https://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/populations/1945-1965.htm

I also noticed that a few other birth dates sources on this page and the other generational pages were from opinionated blogs not backed by any credible research. I would like to fix this area and provide all potential researches to have the most accurate and credible information available to them from all potential credible sources. This will maintain the integrity of the Wikipedia organization.

I hope this is an area that Wikipedia can overcome as I look forward to contributing credible and helpful information in the future. Any discussion is welcome on my part.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by SolomonSalem (talk • contribs) 18:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

SolomonSalem the first paragraph gives a wide range of birth dates that covers all your proposed birth years (except 1965). Is 1965 that important to mention? If so, why? Thank you. 2606:6000:6111:8E00:39F4:9C2F:1968:8540 (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

HiLo48, the US Census Bureau is the most significant source for measuring the baby boomers in the US, followed by Pew. I understand your concern, but this source should definitely be included. I encourage you to look for additional sources from other countries. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

US-centrism is a massive issue for Wikipedia. Americans need to do something about it. HiLo48 (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe you that US-centrism is a massive issue here. I'm just trying to contribute what I know. I did see that the Social Research Center seems to be the Australian version of the US Pew Research Center. They define the generations here: [2]. And the Australian Bureau of Statistics would be the equivalent of the US Census Bureau. They define baby boomers here:[3]. There's an article behind a paywall that looks promising:[4]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

HiLo48, how is this for now? [5] Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute (All Along the Watchtower)

No pictures of Eric Clapton or Jimi Hendrix this article to reference a colorful article on Generation X which incidentally grows up with KISS. No image of a peace sign by a legacy in mind. Nothing pertaining to or overtly relating to the Vietnam era. What it is to be a Baby Boomer? Ultimately the following generation holds out without selling out going corporate to live and let die if ever the wild children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.221.150 (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Please feel free to add non-copyrighted images to the article to improve it. Wikipedia:Images provides helpful info on adding images. DynaGirl (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The Gen-X wikipedia article to deify Michael Jackson rather than Perry Farrell?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.44.178.72 (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2019

This discussion seems to miss the most important reasons for the baby boomer affluence in the United States, the most prosperous country post WWII. It was not education and housing subsidies. These only could happen because of the affluence already being created. It was a free market capitalist economy aided by post WWII prominence and aided by coming out of the depression. It is important to note that the free market had been growing since the beginning of the United States and was also a major reason for winning the war. Having actually lived and studied about this time I can tell you it was an affluent time and for most people, it was the economy from free markets, that lead to affluence not housing and other subsides. 65.130.215.134 (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done No edit requested. Using talk page as a forum Toddst1 (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

 Note: Fixed formatting on above comment by Toddst1. --Majavah ^(t/c) 18:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Generation Jones

Toddst1, with regard to this edit summary (and of course the reversion itself) "Commentary removed. keep the facts" can you clarify your reasoning? Firstly, I'd rather remove, or at least rephrase the entire statement, as it's a bit clunky, but primarily we've already defined (and linked) to "Generation Jones" in a much better way in the above "Definition" section. There is no removal of facts, only removal of repetition:

The American term "Generation Jones" is sometimes used to describe those born roughly between 1954 and 1965. The term is typically used to refer to the later years of the baby boomer cohort and the early years of Generation X.

There is no need for repetition, or the wikilink. Also the claim of the malaise years is unsourced. Finally, although the dates are admittedly "rough", the dates used in the second section do not match those used in the first. Even if rough dates, they should match for consistency in the article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

No engagement from dissenting editor, so removing duplication. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

One of the worst articles on Wiki

A complete dartboard for the new wave of finger-pointing "generation definers". This is a pile of low blowing pot-shots at an age group disgustingly presented as encyclopedic content. The article is attempting to narrate an attitude or historical noir with randomized, obscure references that betray the source work as a whole; sloppily gathered by, who I wager, are non-academics on a mission to legitimize their biases. In other words, this is a story made by people who simply weren't there, and little qualitative fact is given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.135.38 (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. As the article concedes, "Ascribing universal attributes to any generation is tricky, . . . " but proceeds to do just that. Avocats (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is a hideous article. Pure rubbish from start to finish.77Mike77 (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

IP disruption: dates and notable people

MelanieN, the same IP who we discussed at WP:Greatest Generation is now loading up this article with notable people against consensus.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
And they are changing dates, etc.[6]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Kolya, thanks for the ping. A couple of things. First, there is not enough disruption or edit warring at this point to require protection. Second, this appears to be material that has been in the article for a long time, until you recently removed it and they restored it. If there is a disagreement about longstanding material, the default is to keep the longstanding material and the burden of proof is on the person who wants to remove it. If you think this is something that does not belong in the article, you need to explain why, here on the talk page - maybe with a link to a consensus reached somewhere else? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I did remove presidents of the US and UK, which appear to have been longstanding, but the long list has not been static. This has been warred over off and on by the same IP.[7] More recent warring can be found from other IPs from the same location. I may have not noticed this list before because it is not under a "Notable people" section as the other generation articles had had.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, the IP removed this talk page section,[8] and is edit warring without discussion.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The date-changing problem has now gotten bad enough that the article needs protection, so I semi-protected it for a week. You have still not addressed the content dispute about whether to include notable people or not. Yes, that is a content dispute, not vandalism. Start a new discussion here, on this talk page, addressed to the IPs and not to me, explaining why you removed that material and why you believe that people should not be included here. Provide a link to any related discussions where consensus was reached. Since that material has been in the article for a long time, you need to justify removing it. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

To the IP who supports a notable people section, I think this article should be consistent with the other generations articles which do not have sections for notable members. Deciding who among a billion people in each generation should be listed is virtually impossible. This topic has been discussed many times on most of the generation talk pages where the outcome was to remove notable members, but there is not one clear extended discussion showing consensus. Consensus has been formed through the editing history among the generations articles. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems like the IPs are the ones trying to add the "notable people" section (basically an exhaustive list of politicians) to the article. It has been reverted and removed by several different editors and they just keep adding them back without discussion: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. I support the removal since it's unsourced and original research. Every generation has had or will have notable politicians so it's unnecessary and trivial to include (unless there are sources indicating the politicians' nobility to the generation (which this section currently doesn't have)). Someone963852 (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Such lists become pure POV selections. Quite unhelpful to creating quality articles. HiLo48 (talk) 07:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I asked MelanieN to block the IPs; her response was that if the IPs come back after the page is unprotected we can treat it as vandalism and revert frequently [16]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I have protected the page shortly due to persistent IP disruption. If you feel it should be longer, just ping me. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

HickoryOughtShirt?4, help! Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

"Generation W" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Generation W. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Toddst1 (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

1946

please add pictures of the 3 Presidents born in a same year(extremely rare!) people say that every generation has great peoples but 3 Presidents in a same year? they deserve to be here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.54.95.84 (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Presidents of what? Remember, this is a global encyclopaedia. And this article is about Baby boomers. HiLo48 (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:OR & WP:POV

This article, which I've never to my recollection looked at before this year, is so full of undocumented opinions that I want to take a week off of work and cut all the crap out. Look at this sentence:

The boomers have tended to think of themselves as a special generation, very different from preceding and subsequent generations.

No sourcing of this absurdly overgeneralized and arguably pejorative statement. You couldn't get away with this kind of statement if the article was about a racial group, or a gender, or an ethnicity. Unschool 21:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep. Rubbish. Like an awful lot of that article. A look at the article's history will show that it's been the target of a lot of vandalism in recent months. I would support the removal of any unsourced content. HiLo48 (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). Toddst1 (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Reason for revert?

I made a change to the article which has been reverted. This change, (which explains that the Boomer cut-off point could be as early as 1961) was to bring it in line with the Generation X entry, which notes that several sources (eg: Strauss & Howe) claim the Gen X cohort may have started as early as 1961. It therefore follows logically......etc. Reason for revert? Hanoi Road (talk) 10:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Hanoi Road:, the source in the lead (reference #1: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/greed-of-boomers-led-us-to-a-total-bust-20110925-1krki.html] states that Baby Boomers are "most often defined as those born 1946 to 1964". Some1 (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I know. I simply added a qualifier which does not dispute that fact, but rather keeps it in line with the Gen X entry. What's the problem? Hanoi Road (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hanoi Road: The edit summary of your edit states that: "Addition citing cut-off point as early as 1961 by some sources (eg: Strauss Howe)" but according to the body of the article, Strauss and Howe's cut off point is 1960, not 1961 ("Authors William Strauss and Neil Howe, in their 1991 book Generations, define the social generation of boomers as that cohort born from 1943 to 1960"). Additionally, we should make sure that the lead sentence adheres to WP:WEIGHT. Just from looking through the "Date range and definitions" section of the current article, one author ends it 1960, another author ends it 1961, a professor ends it 1962, none for 1963, and 7 sources (which includes demographers, researchers, governmental agencies, and an author) all cut it off at 1964. And per my previous comment, the source in the lead (Ref #1) states that Baby Boomers are "most often defined as those born 1946 to 1964." All of this follows WP:WEIGHT and WP:RSUW. Hope this helps. Some1 (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon settlers

There is a sentence that begins "Historically, the early Anglo-Protestant settlers in the sixteenth century". This is nonsense. The Plymouth colony was founded in 1620. There were no Angle-Protestant settlers in North America in the sixteenth century. 2600:1700:CD40:3DB0:892A:39F2:768E:E3E1 (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for proofreading. The error has been corrected. Nerd271 (talk) 02:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Birthrates higher in Spring Economies; where Opportunity is high.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Generation timeline.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

"Kathleen Casey-Kirschling" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kathleen Casey-Kirschling. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 5#Kathleen Casey-Kirschling until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Birthrates higher in Spring Economies; where Opportunity is high.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Chynichart.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This article needs work

Much of this article, starting at part 4) Characteristics, needs some extensive revision. It reads like a middling freshman sociology assignment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.231.103.245 (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Often?

Baby Boomers are only RECENTLY referred to as “Boomers,” and only by Millennials and Gen Z when they’re engaging in bigotry. SheldonHelms (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that I have heard the word Boomer used for years. 2600:1002:B03D:2768:DCA4:58D8:AEF8:94AF (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

OK Boomer is said to have been first used in 2009, reaching mass popularity in 2019, so presumably "boomer" alone was first used some time before 2009. HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely I've been using the word Boomer to refer to Baby Boomers for Decades. 2600:1002:B03D:2768:DCA4:58D8:AEF8:94AF (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think using "Boomer" as shorthand for "Baby Boomer" is that much of a leap. It seems natural and convenient to me. Nerd271 (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, the same way people refer to Gen Xers as Xers. 2600:1002:B034:4B95:E516:EBEC:34E0:DEF4 (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Legacy with regards to climate-change

With climate change at hand, it's more and more important to highlight the somewhat permanent and disproportionate greenhouse gas impact this generation has had. Perhaps under legacy or with discussions of it in several places — for example, with regards to the political views, especially as they've aged. Nandofan (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Too soon. And besides, even if you actually lived in an environmentally conscious world, whether or not people actually care is a different story. For example, some pollsters tell us Generation Z care a great deal about the environment, yet sales numbers show they love "fast fashion" delivered to their doors. Similarly, back in the 2000s and 2010s, Millennials apparently abandoned car-culture, only to catch up with their elders as time went by. It was not because of concerns about climate change, but cost. Nerd271 (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

If you can find sources about it, I think this is a good thing to include. The economic behaviors of generations are largely irrelevant to legacy. BappleBusiness^[talk] 19:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@BappleBusiness: You might want to reconsider this one. If environment impacts are deemed significant, then economic behaviors actually matter. How else would a demographic cohort affect the environment? Nerd271 (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh I'm not saying that individual economic behaviors aren't significant to environmental impacts - they absolutely are. Although it is important to keep in mind that individual choices are not the only factor; governments have enabled the economic behaviors causing climate change, and baby boomers have dominated positions of power for the past few decades. What I was saying is that if there is a significant conception of baby boomers as causing climate change, it may be worthy to include, regardless of their actual impact (but of course we wouldn't reproduce falsehoods, we would provide supplementary information if their actual impact does not align with the popular conception). BappleBusiness^[talk] 19:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

US Presidents

A few weeks ago, an IP user added an image gallery of three presidents of the United States to the lead of the article, without explaining their reasoning.[17] I removed this, as I didn't understand why we were centring these individuals at the top of the article (WP:UNDUE), but it was reverted by the user, who told me to "Please leave it alone, PERIOD !!!".[18] Per WP:BRD, I'm bringing this up here. Why are these people so important to the subject? This article is supposed to be about an entire generation of people, from across the globe. What makes these three especially notable to the subject? I'm very confused by this. -- Grnrchst (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I fixed the problem. Nerd271 (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

US Presidents

A few weeks ago, an IP user added an image gallery of three presidents of the United States to the lead of the article, without explaining their reasoning.[19] I removed this, as I didn't understand why we were centring these individuals at the top of the article (WP:UNDUE), but it was reverted by the user, who told me to "Please leave it alone, PERIOD !!!".[20] Per WP:BRD, I'm bringing this up here. Why are these people so important to the subject? This article is supposed to be about an entire generation of people, from across the globe. What makes these three especially notable to the subject? I'm very confused by this. -- Grnrchst (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I fixed the problem. Nerd271 (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Sweeping generalisations

How can somewhere as reputable as wikipedia allow rubbish like this? 86.177.1.97 (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Have you checked the sources? Nerd271 (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Do generalisations become valid when they have some literary source? Defining the entire human race born between a certain era with a distinct set of characteristics and beliefs is nothing short of incompetent. 86.177.1.97 (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on what we consider reliable sources. Reliable sources are not "literary" because this is non-fiction. Note the information only applies to certain groups, and we are only talking about about statistical averages and overall trends. Individual experiences might be different. Do you have any credible sources to add further information to the article? Nerd271 (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Definition by years/dates: I was always told that the “Baby Boom” was the 20 years following WWII, thus 1946-1965. Even the graph presented shows the birth rate returning to pre-WWII-end rates in mid-1965. More specifically, WWII ended in August 1945. Considering full term births and allowing time for soldiers to return home, children CONCEIVED after the end of the war would be born in June 1946 at the earliest. So why is this defined as the entirety of 1946 to 1964 instead of June 1, 1946 to June 30, 1965? I was born in the first half of 1965 and have always been told that I am one of the last boomers. 208.76.93.36 (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

"...have always been told" is not a reliable source.

"Myth of the American Golden Age" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Myth of the American Golden Age has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 10 § Myth of the American Golden Age until a consensus is reached. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

mislabeled plot

the graph called "U.S. adult demographic cohorts in 2019" suggests there are more members of certain demographics today than were born into that group. This is impossible unless we count middle age folk who identify as Millennials. 135.23.207.167 (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably from immigration. Dan Bloch (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Picking a parent term and using it consistently

Hey @Nerd271. Regarding this revert: I notice you reverted my attempts to add the term "Western world social generation" to the leads of these articles. Honestly I don't really care what term we pick, but I do think we need to coalesce around one term and then add them to these articles and be consistent.

I picked "Western world social generation" because it is the title of the sidebar Template:Generations Sidebar, and because it is used at Generation#Social generation and Generation#Western world. If you don't like that name, let's pick another one and be consistent with it. This concept needs a name, and maybe even its own article (although for now it is a big chunk of the Generation article). Something with "cohort" might also be a good choice. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The first problem is that "Western world" is not an adjective. Note that the sidebar says, "Social generations of the Western world." The articles in this category can all be started in a fairly uniform manner. All articles on social generations have been fixed. Nerd271 (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

"Western world social generation" sounds fluent to me. But no biggie. Would changing it to "social generation of the Western world" be better? –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I fixed all the articles. They all start pretty much the same way now. I don't think we need to make further changes in this regard. I have been editing these articles (especially Baby Boomers, Millennials, Generation Z, and Generation Alpha) since the late 2010s. The starts of these articles are fairly stable by this time. Nerd271 (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

My idea is that whatever Generation X, Generation Y, Baby Boomer, Millennial, etc. are is a term that needs a name and perhaps even its own article. Then we mention it in the intro of all these articles and we wikilink to the term. Looks like you changed everything back to "demographic cohort". That might work as a term if you and others warm up to this idea. If not no biggie. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Click on the link to "social generation" and see what happens. It links you to a specific section of the article on generations. A social generation or a demographic cohort is not to be confused with a biological generation. Nerd271 (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 14 March 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW closing, consensus against the proposed move is unanimous. BD2412 T 00:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Baby boomers → Boomers – per WP:COMMONNAME, sources which omit the "baby" are more common. For example The Guardian, The Times, Insider, i, Wall Street Journal. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 06:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. The nomination doesn't provide any evidence for the claim that boomer is more common. All the links are to just a single occurrence of boomer, that is, a total of five occurrences. Dan Bloch (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Comment Google Trends shows "boomer" as being by far the more commonly searched for term. I'm not sure what other evidence you would want if multiple well-known newspapers aren't enough? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 09:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  The multiple well-known newspapers all use both "boomer" and "baby boomer". It's up to you as the nominator to show that boomer is more common, and I don't see it. For example Google searches of the Guardian for "baby boomers" and "boomers" -"baby boomers" show a preponderance for baby boomers. The Google Trends data is surprising, but not conclusive.

  But more to the point, as others have said below, baby boomers would still be preferred for use in an encyclopedia. To give a nearby example, "Gen X" is more commonly used than "Generation X", but Generation X is still the primary topic, with Gen X being a redirect. Dan Bloch (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per Danbloch. O.N.R. ^(talk) 07:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not convinced by only five news sources. In addition to Britannica, there is probably sociology and other academic works on this subject as well that may still use "baby boomers". Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Boomers" in this context is just short for "Baby Boomers." Nerd271 (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose 'Baby boomers' is the "official"/COMMONNAME for this generation; 'Boomers' is just short for Baby boomers. Some1 (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, Baby Boomers is the historically significant common name and the "official" name. The history of the term did not start out by the public and sources naming the generation "Boomers", which would have had little meaning and still doesn't, except as slang ("Okay! Boomers!") as a short form of the term. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Baby boomers is most definitely the WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Context is relevant here. Dympies (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1965?

can the year 1965 be very last demographic cohort of baby boomer? 2404:8000:1027:B639:DDA6:3ACB:E0D9:33AE (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Not at all, the last year of Generation Jones for sure but not the last Baby Boomer year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B026:BDAA:5D54:D2C5:3808:F8C5 (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be sources cited for the graphs? Not having any implies that there is some kind of consensus for the numbers involved, which of course there isn't. So I think the graphs should be labeled with whatever group or individual created them. JBrownIII (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

See the Wikimedia pages for the graphs. Nerd271 (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

That in no way addresses my question. JBrownIII (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Which graphs? Dan Bloch (talk) 06:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Like Danbloch said, which graphs? Again, you can always check the Wikimedia pages for any image. Just click on them. Nerd271 (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Generational Conflict, and Legacy with regards to climate-change

With climate change at hand, it's more and more important to highlight the somewhat permanent and disproportionate greenhouse gas impact this generation has had. Perhaps under legacy or with discussions of it in several places — for example, with regards to the political views, especially as they've aged. Nandofan (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Too soon. And besides, even if you actually lived in an environmentally conscious world, whether or not people actually care is a different story. For example, some pollsters tell us Generation Z care a great deal about the environment, yet sales numbers show they love "fast fashion" delivered to their doors. Similarly, back in the 2000s and 2010s, Millennials apparently abandoned car-culture, only to catch up with their elders as time went by. It was not because of concerns about climate change, but cost. Nerd271 (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

If you can find sources about it, I think this is a good thing to include. The economic behaviors of generations are largely irrelevant to legacy. BappleBusiness^[talk] 19:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@BappleBusiness: You might want to reconsider this one. If environment impacts are deemed significant, then economic behaviors actually matter. How else would a demographic cohort affect the environment? Nerd271 (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh I'm not saying that individual economic behaviors aren't significant to environmental impacts - they absolutely are. Although it is important to keep in mind that individual choices are not the only factor; governments have enabled the economic behaviors causing climate change, and baby boomers have dominated positions of power for the past few decades. What I was saying is that if there is a significant conception of baby boomers as causing climate change, it may be worthy to include, regardless of their actual impact (but of course we wouldn't reproduce falsehoods, we would provide supplementary information if their actual impact does not align with the popular conception). BappleBusiness^[talk] 19:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I think it would add a lot of important and relevant contemporary context. Collecting some resources.

[21]https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/baby-boomers-greenhouse-gas-emissions-b2043755.html

[22]https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/feb/07/the-pinch-david-willetts

[23]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIxvX_8Gr3U

[24]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuXzvjBYW8A

[25]https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/62008/ssoar-igjr-2010-1-rez-schwarzberg.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y&lnkname=ssoar-igjr-2010-1-rez-schwarzberg.pdf

[26]https://www.jstor.org/stable/25749231

I'm hoping Willet's criticisms could perhaps form the bases for wider discussion within the article with regards to whether such a generational conflict exists, and to what extent, while linking to other relevant topics within wikipedia.

- Nandofan (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

This seems a weirdly specific tangent to me. What is the special link that boomers in particular have to the climate change issue? Why is that issue any more relevant to their generation than it is to other groups? The article can't cover every possible attitude toward every existent subject, so why pick so random a topic to comment on? It gives a false impression of correlation where there is none. JBrownIII (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Because they've had an enormous impact on total emissions and have set many of the policy directions leading to further climate deterioration and the institutionalized momentum keeping us from changing course. I've referenced some materials that shows what the link is and it is definitely noteworthy. That's not to mention that the article discusses all sorts of things with regards to boomers. There shouldn't be such surprise at the suggestion that a crucial, all encompassing, enormously important issue like climate change be discussed as well. After all, the article very much is discussing the emergence, importance, and various impacts of this particular generation. What else is the article if not that? It's very much the type of thing that gets included in a comprehensive encyclopedia entry. Nandofan (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)